Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have not ready 40k books extensively so this observation/question may bee from too small a vantage point. I have read the first 3 Ultramarine books by Graham McNiel and I am half way through the second Horus Heresy book.

I don't know much about Graham McNiell or Dan Abnett but I would have to guess niether has any military experience OR they are under strict boundries in the stories they write. While I know it is fantasy, I can't help but feel the military forces in 40k fluff (particualarly Human forces) are absolute morons when it comes to planning military operations.

The freshest example in my mind is from Horus Rising. When the rebels hide out in the mountains the Imperial Army apparently tries walking across a bridge in the open... several times... No thought of vertical envelopment, armor to provide cover, smoke, going at night etc... Also, the whole defence of the false emperor seemed horribly inept. I mean, they had a mini gun that could shred a space marine into pulp in a split second, but apparently they only ever built one. Why!??!?! When the Luna Wolves arrive they just march across the bridge without taking a single casualty. I know they had terminator armor and all but after what the defenders did to the army you'd think they could at least slow them down. I mean, pile some rocks in their way (terminators have low maneuverability if I am no mistaken) and some of that heavy ordinance would eventually take out one or two. Even space Marines seem pretty dumb. I mean the whole blood angels at spiderland thing, though the book explained that it was indeed really stupid, how could Space Marines allow themselves to be employed that way? I also take issue with the whole "spear tip" tactic. Its just a frontal assault. Its not a Blitz (striking deep and swiftly behind enemy lines to disrupt communications) or a pincer or anything, its just a frontal assault on the most heavily defended enemy position. The books seem inconsistant about how difficult it is to kill a space marine ranging from nigh impossible (false emperors forces) to slicing through them like butter (spiders with NO projectile weapons but sharp knives) so that whole speartip strategy seems like the only reason it would work is because the aither says it did.

It has been awhile since I read the Ultramarines books, but I remember a few things in there as well. First off is about equipment. At the very beginning of the first book it talks about Uriel Ventris sneaking through the rain because it was hard to see. Does noone in the future employ technology like thermal imaging or night vision (with which you can see through rain). I also remember a part where some rebels are defending against the Ultramarines and some of the marines simply sneak around behind them through some vents or something. The rebels were supposed to be actual military forces, but apparently they had never learned rear security.

Anyways, I know these examples are from only a tiny portion of available fluff and are rather general in nature. My question, particularly to those who have read a bit more, is does it seem like every military of every race in the future is horribly incompetent and that's the way it has to be to fit the fantasy? i have long ago accepted that 40k is by no means 'realistic' but perhaps I need to also accept that is can aslo be rather 'silly' at times. Thoughts? Perhaps that I notice this, or care about it at all means I just need to lighten up, but I thought discussing fluff tactics, as opposed to game tactics could be interesting.

Also I didn't really proof read this so apologies for typos is poor spelling.

40k Fluff just aims to be the most dramatic possible with lots of glory hand-to-hand combat moments.

Besides the Tau, there's really no semblance of real tactics in 40k by and large.

Really even basic organizational structure would prevent the Imperium from being able to successfully wage most wars in fluff. There's no general staff/combined body to coordinate the activities of the 5 primary fighting forces (Imperial Guard, Imperial Navy, SM, SoB, Titan Legions) and the Imperium even seems to lack a military intelligence agency (the exact purpose of the Templars Psykologis is unclear).

WH40K fluff/novels is grimdark space opera, not anything remotely related to well-researched military fiction. Guns are described as hugely destructive, even some manportable versions are capable of blowing away tanks and whole blocks of troops in a single blast. Yet fights usually devolve into a melee where people beat each other to death with giant powered hammers, chainsaw swords and bare hands. Eisenhorn is attacked by mercenaries on a train (these sensibly try to shoot him) and he parries individual bullets with his psychically attuned sword...

There's no general staff/combined body to coordinate the activities of the 5 primary fighting forces (Imperial Guard, Imperial Navy, SM, SoB, Titan Legions

Yes there is. They refer to it as the Warmaster and his council, or general staff. The Warmaster is the overall authority of all Munitorum forces in a given Crusade theatre.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Imperial_Guard_Hierarchy#Warmaster

Actually, that link alone will explain to you how the IG functions.

The Imperium, however, operates under the belief of "Divided, We Stand". Since the Heresy, no single person or body is allowed to command all of the forces of the Imperial military. The SM are not subject to the whims of lesser mortals. The SOB are, technically, under the aegis of the Ordo Hereticus of the Inquisition. The Titan legions are owned, in whole, by the Adeptus Mechanicus.

The Warmaster has the overall tactical oversight, and may suggest to such august bodies as the Legio Titanicus and the Adeptus Astartes where their strength may be best employed... but these other groups are generally under no compunction to obey him, though this can vary by behind-the-scenes politics. The Chapter Master of the SMs present at the Crusade may dictate that they are to follow his battle-orders and provide the insight of tactical doctrine from the Codex Astartes where it would be most useful. Most Warmasters would not be so foolish as to believe that the Space Marines are there for any reason other than their own free will.

When it comes to Inquisitors? Well, again, background politics may require a given field Inquisitor and his retinue to play nice with the Warmaster, because the Conclave Lord Inquisitor says to do so... but, outside of such situations, no one wields more authority than an Inquisitor, unless his initials are GEOM.

Fiction does not conform to reality? Will wonders ever cease

This rejection of realism is practically 40k bread and butter. It prides itself on being over the top to the point that were these plot devices and ideas present anywhere else they'd just be too ridiculous. In a way 40k is a return to classical mythology when you think about it. Where men were manly and won through sheer strength of will and women were... whatever the plot needed them to be.

LordofHats wrote:Fiction does not conform to reality? Will wonders ever cease

This makes a lot of sense BUT, there is quite a deal of very well written, reasonable, fiction. Particuaulary military fiction (Tom Clancy comes to mind). Science fiction included (I am thinking of the Lucky 13th series in particular, though it has been awhile since I read any of them)

LordofHats wrote:
This rejection of realism is practically 40k bread and butter. It prides itself on being over the top to the point that were these plot devices and ideas present anywhere else they'd just be too ridiculous. In a way 40k is a return to classical mythology when you think about it. Where men were manly and won through sheer strength of will and women were... whatever the plot needed them to be.

This is quite a good point and brings me to the question; "Should the fluff avoid describing strategy altogether?" i.e saying "the Marines won because of their awesome strategy. Period" as opposed to saying "the Marines won because of their awesome strategy, which was..." followed by something stupid -OR- (and I think this is more likely correct) do I as the reader need to accept that choices made by the characters are tactically sound and reasonable within their fantasy universe and I should just ignore plot holes and contradictory elements. I feel though, If I accept that I am saying that poor story telling is okay if you simply preface it with "this is fantasy"

It's pulp fiction. It's not meant to match reality. If the plot and story advance based on the on-page events, then you need to concede that the tactics were viable for the setting and the story.


What's the difference between a fairy tale and a war story?

A fairy tale begins, "Once upon a time..." a war story begins, "This is no gak...".

Ssgt Carl wrote:(Tom Clancy comes to mind)

I would avoid calling the Clance man's work 'well written' He's one of the most absurd abusers of the info dump, irrelevant tangent, and just plain bad writing conventions

This is quite a good point and brings me to the question; "Should the fluff avoid describing strategy altogether?"

The fluff really doesn't. It gives a vague outline of what happens, usually focused on the tactics. Strategy is mostly non-existent in fluff and never brought up in any of the stuff I've read (I am not widely read). The Codex's tend to be very brief in summary, not really providing many strategic or even operational details of the 40k universe. Indeed, one could say the Imperium's approach to things is anti-strategic in a number of ways.

I feel though, If I accept that I am saying that poor story telling is okay if you simply preface it with "this is fantasy"

A lack of realism isn't really bad writing, not so long as it remains consistent with its lack of realism. It depends on if you as the audience is willing to suspend disbelief while engaged with the fiction, which is easy to do when things are consistent. It would be a problem if the fiction only cast aside realism when it were convenient but 40k doesn't really. It never embraces realism to begin with.

LordofHats wrote: I would avoid calling the Clance man's work 'well written' He's one of the most absurd abusers of the info dump, irrelevant tangent, and just plain bad writing conventions

Valid. I suppose better examples would have been the Lucky 13th by Rick Shelly, perhaps the Cobra series (great super soldier series, though the earlier ones were better than the later ones) by Timothy Zahn or even, to a lesser extent, the Blackcollar series also by Zahn.

LordofHats wrote:The fluff really doesn't. It gives a vague outline of what happens, usually focused on the tactics. Strategy is mostly non-existent in fluff and never brought up in any of the stuff I've read (I am not widely read). The Codex's tend to be very brief in summary, not really providing many strategic or even operational details of the 40k universe. Indeed, one could say the Imperium's approach to things is anti-strategic in a number of ways.

You bring up a great observation that I am lumping tactics and strategy together. Definitely my mistake. I suppose I would describe the Speartip example from the Horus Heresy books as a 'strategy' (becasue the speartip is intended to achieve a result beyond simply winning a particular battle) and the examples from the Uriel Ventris stories more as 'tactics'.

LordofHats wrote:A lack of realism isn't really bad writing, not so long as it remains consistent with its lack of realism. It depends on if you as the audience is willing to suspend disbelief while engaged with the fiction, which is easy to do when things are consistent. It would be a problem if the fiction only cast aside realism when it were convenient but 40k doesn't really. It never embraces realism to begin with.

I guess this is my biggest problem with the admittedly few books I have read. In Horus Rising i felt as if the Marines went back and forth from "OMG we are the l33t and nothing can stop us!" to "holy crap! spiders with swords are chopping us up through our previously practically invulnerable armor. Call the Titans to come save us!"

Your points are well made and really have answered my question. I believe I went into the 40k books with wrong expectations. They are the first sci-fi fantasy books I have every read. The stuff i have read before, for the most part, were written with some focus on realism.

So i guess you have brought me to the conclusion that 40k stories are just grimdark fairy tales. I need to quit crying about something just because it doesn't seem to make sense in 'real life'

I know the frustration, I am a student of military history and tactics, bugs me to no end the senselessness in 40k sometimes. Read the Imperial Guard books, they make more sense, sometimes.

Now, I would like to defend the speartip strategy however. Space marines are few in number but hard to kill. As such they need to make their impact large and like all elite units they feel they can take anything. For a real world example I would direct you to operation market garden, but I digress. To make the biggest impact they hit the hardest point in the enemy's defenses and shatter it, therefore breaking his morale and having a larger strategic impact than a force of their size normally would.

I think the whole subject isn't as bad when some things are kept in mind. For one, as has already been touched upon, most of those novels are not military fiction. Their one and only purpose is to tell a compelling story, and anyone actually studying stuff like military history would be well-advised to dial up your suspension of disbelief. This is exactly similar to scientists trying to analyze the technology, and a load of science stuff in 40k doesn't make sense as well (Astartes gender limitation, weapons, propulsion systems, etc). To throw in an internet meme: "That's now how you play."

Secondly, author interpretation. The level of "realism" will vary from book to book, depending a lot on the individual author, his knowledge of the fluff and the narrative style (gritty, heroic, funny, ...) he or she was aiming for. And since the Black Library and Forgeworld have a larger cadre of writers than the studio, you will end up with a much bigger spectrum there. This isn't necessarily bad (for the purpose of pure storytelling), it just means that you should take a look around and find an author whose style "fits your bill".

Thirdly, potential lack of detail knowledge concerning the background. Don't misunderstand me, this doesn't mean people who are new to the setting. Even esteemed veterans who have read dozens of studio books may often still be missing some tiny yet essential detail, which alone can seem fairly unimportant, but may change one's perception when combined with other info. An example relevant to the discussion: OP mentioned armour to provide cover for infantry. However, within the Grimdark™ scope of the setting, armour is way more valuable than people, so lots of commanders may opt to rather sacrifice "waves and waves of his best men" before he loses a single vehicle (see: Chenkov sending his troops over a minefield to "clear" it for the tanks). Not sure if this already applied to the Heresy era (not my department at all); if not just take it as a general remark for battles in the following millennia.

Oh, and ...

Psienesis wrote:The SOB are, technically, under the aegis of the Adeptus Ministorum.

/fixed

Well, they are now, yes. They used to be the Hereticus' weapon. Before that they were with the Ecclesiarchy. I'm sure that, one day, they'll be a stand-alone deal.

40k novels really fall into a bizarre combination of Space Opera/High Fantasy/Sword and Sorcery/Pulp Science Fiction....its really quite odd...in short its best termed Space Fantasy

It does not take on the pretense of "true" science fiction (in trying to actually apply science to its fiction) Although it still meets the criterion of being a setting different from our own world due to technology...but the S&S/HF/Operatic nature of it make it pulp.

As it were, the "realistic" side of the military aspect is suppressed in favour of rote heroics, zeal, and grit. Essentially the authors (in my experience) focus on the actual fight on the ground from the eyes of the participants instead of the actual mechanism by which the battle/war was won. 40k literature is the story of people...quite often people who stand out in the sea of insignificance around them...but at the end of the day it is their heroism, brutality, and emotions that drive the story...not tactics or stratagy. This divorcing 40k literature from the Military genre and into the Space Opera/Fantasy (see above) genres.

As well, i believe that it helps the genre to keep it this way. I have no interest in finding out how it is that Creed is considered such a tactical genius (except maybe the broad strokes)...because if any of the authors ever tried to explain it they would probably mess it up.

No offence intended to the BL/GW authors either, it is just that (for the most part) they are good Fantasy/Pulp authors...but they are not military authors. People like Heinlein, Card, Haldiman, Steakley, Brown, Clancy, among others, generate fairly sound Military Fiction, filled with logical tactical thought etc due to their involvement in, or close proximity to the Military in their personal lives......
anyway im getting tired...if anyone wants to hear more of my literary crackpottery...PM me

As it were...I like my 40k like I like my orange juice....shaken and filled with pulp

1. You are right - BL writers have no real military tactic experiences.
2. Space Marines are made to charge i front, at all times. Aldo most chapters in the 41'st millennium use hit and run tactics for what Space Marines are made of ( Zeist campaign ).
3. Imperial commanders are bunch of idiots, they use Guardsman as meat shields and just rush them + tanks to everything ( grimdark ). There are few exceptions of worthy commanders ( like Creed or Sturnn ) who actually use strategy instead of simple rush action ).
4. SoB are made to secure chapels and cathedrals and keep in line Imperial Aristocracy, they are not made for real war but occasionally they are deployed only as support or anti-Chaos troops.
5. Colegia Titanica never fight conventional wars. Titans are deployed to fight of Hard enemy possitions or to counter other faction's super units ( like Chaos Titans or Tyranid Bio-Titan ). Since Titans are rare only the most important battles see them.
6. Adeptus Mechanicus has it's own private army ( Skitarii, Titan Legions, Legio Cybernetica... ), but they only fight o ntheir own Forgeworld. And nowhere else.
7. Problem are enemies. For every enemy have different tactic. Chaos would use military strategy as well as Human Rebels. But races like Eldar and Dark Eldar would just use speed and teleportation, while Orks and Tyranids would just overwhelm you with numbers. You can't use moder day strategies in 41'st millennium against that kind of foes, even WW1 strategies provided better solution ( trenches ).
8. Problem with wargear is that sometimes doesn't work, or the man wearing it have no knowledge of how it works ( Adeptus Astartes helmets indeed have infrared as well as several other scanners ), thus completally failed to utilise it.

To sum it up:
-Some modern strategies cannot be used. Sometimes WW1 or WW2 strategies are better solution.
-Imperial commander are idiots ( around 90% of them ). Chenkov is above of them all.
-Some factions are to proud to fond cover so they charge. Like Marines who charge at the enemy across open terrain.
-It's not Grimdark enough to achieve objective with as less losses as possible. Slaughter of millions for 1 planet is indeed more Grimdark.

Psienesis wrote:Well, they are now, yes. They used to be the Hereticus' weapon. Before that they were with the Ecclesiarchy. I'm sure that, one day, they'll be a stand-alone deal.

Nah, they were always with the Ministorum, that had never changed - the deal with the Hereticus was basically an alliance (not sure if that's still valid? damn that WD codex), but officially they always remained the troops of the Church. Said so in the Codex and the WD Design Notes (a recommendable read by the way).
That said, in a way they always stood a little apart in that they were policing the Ministorum just as much as they were fighting its wars - but still, the Ecclesiarch was basically their boss.

Brother Coa wrote:4. SoB are made to secure chapels and cathedrals and keep in line Imperial Aristocracy, they are not made for real war but occasionally they are deployed only as support or anti-Chaos troops.
6. Adeptus Mechanicus has it's own private army ( Skitarii, Titan Legions, Legio Cybernetica... ), but they only fight o ntheir own Forgeworld. And nowhere else.

Generally I agree very much with the points you raised, though I think I'd like to add something to the two above:

The SoB tend to get underestimated. Whilst it is true that they don't train as much for war as Storm Troopers do, this lapse in experience and "tactical thinking" is partially balanced out by their Astartes-level equipment and the insane zeal that just keeps them going. Securing Ecclesiarchal holy sites is only a small part of their duties (and the vast majority of the Imperium's chapels and cathedrals is guarded only by Frateris Militia, PDF or IG in case of war). They are spearheading the Ecclesiarchy's "Wars of Faith", are often part of an Imperial Crusade, occasionally get requisitioned by the Inquisition, and generally fight "heretics" of any kind. Including Space Marines. Without backup.

As for the Mechanicus - I'm not too sure on that, but I believe that Skitarii also accompany Explorator missions and serve as escorts when the Titan Legions go into battle as part of some big coordinated Imperial effort. The Tech-Guard was also deployed to help the Marines lay siege to the Ecclesiarchal Palace on Terra during the Age of Apostasy. I'm sure some expert on the AdMech can add more examples, or correct me if I am wrong on any of this.

Lynata wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:4. SoB are made to secure chapels and cathedrals and keep in line Imperial Aristocracy, they are not made for real war but occasionally they are deployed only as support or anti-Chaos troops.
6. Adeptus Mechanicus has it's own private army ( Skitarii, Titan Legions, Legio Cybernetica... ), but they only fight o ntheir own Forgeworld. And nowhere else.

Generally I agree very much with the points you raised, though I think I'd like to add something to the two above:

The SoB tend to get underestimated. Whilst it is true that they don't train as much for war as Storm Troopers do, this lapse in experience and "tactical thinking" is partially balanced out by their Astartes-level equipment and the insane zeal that just keeps them going. Securing Ecclesiarchal holy sites is only a small part of their duties (and the vast majority of the Imperium's chapels and cathedrals is guarded only by Frateris Militia, PDF or IG in case of war). They are spearheading the Ecclesiarchy's "Wars of Faith", are often part of an Imperial Crusade, occasionally get requisitioned by the Inquisition, and generally fight "heretics" of any kind. Including Space Marines. Without backup.

As for the Mechanicus - I'm not too sure on that, but I believe that Skitarii also accompany Explorator missions and serve as escorts when the Titan Legions go into battle as part of some big coordinated Imperial effort. The Tech-Guard was also deployed to help the Marines lay siege to the Ecclesiarchal Palace on Terra during the Age of Apostasy. I'm sure some expert on the AdMech can add more examples, or correct me if I am wrong on any of this.

You are right, I knew I forgot something to mention. Thank you for pointing this.